Hi everyone,
I've been reading a lot of info on here and thought someone might could help with my questions.
My dad, age 49, was diagnosed in August with bc. After many tests, the local urologist recommended rc. Dad went to MD Anderson for second opinion, his Dr. there is chair of the Urology Dept and he confirmed the reccommendation for rc. His case seemed to be a little unusual because both Drs agreed that the tumors seemed to be non-agressive and low grade, however they had encompassed basically his entire bladder. Dr. at Anderson even commented that he could not find a "normal" area in the entire bladder. Dad decided to have the surgery at Anderson counting on what we assumed was superior care. Surgery was completed with removal of his prostate, many lymph nodes (although I don't know the number) and construction of an Indiana Pouch. Lymph nodes were all clear but there was cancer in the prostate. He recovered well and returned home about 2 wks later.
Here is my question: His Dr. at Anderson did NOT recommend chemo either before or after the surgery. Dad even asked him shouldn't he have chemo just as a precaution and doc said no, there was no reason for it. Can anyone explain this? In all of my research it seems chemo is pretty standard either before or after the surgery. We trusted this Dr. based on the reputation of MD Anderson.
We just found out that Dad has what are likely mets in his liver and pelvic bone (biopsy was done yesterday to be sure). I know that this could have happened regardless of whether or not he had chemo but I can't help but wonder if it could have been prevented. In reviewing the scan report from his initial diagnosis my mom found indications of questionable areas in his liver and hip that stated "do not appear to be of any significance". But they were there. This just feels like somebody screwed up to me. Can anyone enlighten me? Have you heard of other cases where chemo wasn't recommended?
Thanks to you all...
